248 D. WARD CUTLER 
confusion has arisen around the nomenclature of these forms. 
In 1910 Hartmann (9) gave an account of a flagellate which 
he named Trichonympha hertwigi, and described 
male and female forms from which gametes were produced. 
Conjugation between these gametes was supposed to occur, 
and the resulting young forms were figured. Hartmann’s 
observations, however, did not bear out these assumptions, 
and it is certain that they have no foundation in fact. His 
conclusions were attacked in 1911 by Grassi (6), who pointed 
out that ‘Trichonympha hertwigi’ was in reality 
a mixture of two or more genera, the male form belonging to 
the genus Holomastigotoides, the female form to the 
genus Pseudotrichonympha, and the ‘young form’ 
was referred to Pyrsonympha. The ‘gametes’ were 
undoubtedly minute oval flagellates abundant in the intes- 
tines of many termites. ‘The confusion arose round the * male ’ 
and ‘female’ forms of Hartmann, for Grassi’s description of 
the genera, to which he referred them, did not appear to agree 
with Hartmann’s account; as Franca pomted out in 1916. 
In a later paper Grassi (7) rectified his error, referring the 
‘male’ form to the genus Pseudotrichonympha and 
the ‘female’ form to Holomastigotoides, thus revers- 
ing his earlier statement. Unfortunately, however, the 
mistake received a wide acceptance, and even in Doflein’s 
latest edition of his text-book (8) it is still perpetrated. Iofoid 
and Swezy (18) also in their recent paper on Trichonympha 
campanula adhere to Grassi’s first classification. 
The organism described in the present paper is undoubtedly 
closely related to the ‘male’ form of T. hertwigi, and 
should therefore be named Pseudotrichonympha 
pristina and not Trichonympha (Holomastigo- 
toides) pristina, as [mms has called it. 
MeErHops. 
The methods used for the study of P. pristina are 
those already described in my previous papers (2), to which 
I would refer those interested. 
